The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff, a married male, was married with his father and her wife while living together with the above non-party, who was living together with his mother, and was living together with the non-party, who is a woman, 1960 (the divorce on the family register, 1966) and gave birth to 1965, but he did not reach the end of around 1969, he did not return to the work place living together with the above non-party, who was living together with his mother at the time of Busan Central-gu, Busan, and caused them to be 1 to find out annoyed work place and to find out annoy work place by causing them to be 5 weeks, while making them find out that they did not go back to the work place at the time when they did not go to the work place at the time, and caused them to do so at the latest by causing annoy work place and making them to do so.

The above facts can be acknowledged by a comprehensive review of each evidence adopted by the court below according to the records, and it is clear that the public copy of the public document of the director general of the Gyeongnam Police Bureau of the theory of the lawsuit is part of the documents submitted to the court in addition to the defendant's prescribed administrative agency as the litigation materials of this case, and considering the contents of the brief submitted by the plaintiff and the reasons for pleading, it cannot be acknowledged as a disturbance of the court's final decision of the court below without any evidence. Thus, there is no error of law of finding facts without evidence in the determination of facts.

In addition, considering the above facts of the court below's decision, it is not only the non-party who caused disturbance at the workplace, but also the plaintiff's credit was involved in the disturbance, as well as not only the purport that the plaintiff living together with his female as a tax official (administrative branch) but also did not return to the house which the plaintiff had born to his own child without the agreement on separate living between his female and his female. Thus, the plaintiff demanded that the plaintiff take measures for his own child's life, and that he found the plaintiff's work and caused the plaintiff's violence to his female every time. Thus, the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles of Articles 63 and 78 subparagraph 3 of the State Public Officials Act, and it does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

On the contrary, the plaintiff's identity did not cause any disturbance in the workplace, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss the appeal that the plaintiff did not have any reason falling under Article 63 and Article 78 Item 3 of the State Public Officials Act on the premise that there is no damage to his body or dignity as a public official, and even if there are various circumstances or service sincerity as to the plaintiff, it shall be considered all circumstances related to the disciplinary cause of this case, and if considering the above disciplinary cause of this case, it is not reasonable to conclude that the defendant decided to dismiss him as a kind of disciplinary action, and that the defendant's action was unlawful in deviation from the scope of his discretion. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal that the dismissal disposition of this case is unlawful beyond the scope of his discretion, is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court